|
HoD's looking great. Though I wish they would deal with the badboy system somehow. Annexing some South American country shouldn't give you the same badboy penalty as annexing a huge hunk of France. It seems to me like sparsely PoPulated provinces should be cheaper to conquer.
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 03:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:Someone made the hilarious mistake of asking about Ireland's place in the crisis system. Holy poo poo so much I like how immediately the slurs came out. It took 3 replies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 03:35
|
|
|
a bad enough dude posted:Pretty disappointing to see the entire EvW paradox subforum obsessed with military minutiae rather than, y'know, the actual cold war. Well, I guess if that's what the customers want... Seems to vary from thread to thread tbh. The latest Dev Diary thread is full of obsessives shouting down anyone who dares to utter a critical word as a troll but in other threads I've seen a ton of people point out that they've actively avoided showing anything of the political, economic or diplomatic systems. Aaaand the release date's been changed from Q2 to 'TBC'. Apparently it's been 'slightly delayed'. The forum's freaking out about this being the next Magna Mundi which honestly I sorta want to happen now, it'd be hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 04:42
|
|
|
Wiz posted:I could do another V2 drunkstream. The last one was pretty popular. I missed this, and it sounds amazing, is there someplace I could watch it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 05:04
|
|
|
Crameltonian posted:Seems to vary from thread to thread tbh. The latest Dev Diary thread is full of obsessives shouting down anyone who dares to utter a critical word as a troll but in other threads I've seen a ton of people point out that they've actively avoided showing anything of the political, economic or diplomatic systems. I'm torn- on the one hand, I want a decent Cold War game that was made sometime in this century. On the other hand, I always love a good trainwreck.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 05:20
|
|
|
Kavak posted:I'm torn- on the one hand, I want a decent Cold War game that was made sometime in this century. On the other hand, I always love a good trainwreck. Basically if it turns into "HoI with extended timeline and ship armaments and V2 pop wheels" I'm rooting for trainwreck (no offense PDox devs, a wargame in the cold war isn't really something that sounds like it would be enjoyable), if there is a lot of political and cultural and other nonwar mechanics, I want this to just be a rocky start.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 05:36
|
|
|
I would want a good war game, but I would also want there to be something substantial to the economy and politics, but yes I would put the emphasis on the war, so long as there's some variety to different types of wars like Vietnam or Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I would want a good war game, but I would also want there to be something substantial to the economy and politics, but yes I would put the emphasis on the war, so long as there's some variety to different types of wars like Vietnam or Afghanistan.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:18
|
|
|
It's an issue of personal taste, but I'd prefer a game more focused on politics and diplomacy to model the Cold War. The map isn't really big enough to satisfactorily model most conflicts during that era down to the scale that I think they'd demand in a war sim, so I'd prefer it if they abstracted military matters a bit more, like in Vicky, and focused more on soft power, because right now the game's looking like AoD with a lot of downtime between conflicts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:20
|
|
|
Ofaloaf posted:But the most important thing about the Cold War is that The Big One was avoided. Sure, there were all sorts of satellite wars and it's right and proper for those to have some attention, but to focus on those conflicts to the detriment of all the diplomacy and spycraft which went on to prevent a direct confrontation from happening is to seriously miss what ought to be the point of a Cold War grand strategy game. And Germany lost WWII but that possibility of them winning is like there. I've done it once allied to Poland. Although a war game that does make a good Fulda Gap simulator would be awesome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:I would want a good war game, but I would also want there to be something substantial to the economy and politics, but yes I would put the emphasis on the war, so long as there's some variety to different types of wars like Vietnam or Afghanistan. It's just that post-WWII there are so many kinds of conflicts that you would be hard-pressed to both represent properly and be fun to play within the HOI wargame framework. For example, Algeria was a historically important conflict zone, with huge repercussions throughout the region and for France, and it was defined by its intricacy, insurgency and counterinsurgency, diplomatic and guerrilla maneuvers -- I would hope that the game would do more justice to it than an army stack on top of Algiers fighting partisans. Same with Cuba, or Iran, or Chile, or the radical movements in France and Italy and Germany in the late 60s-early 70s. That is, there should be more to model about a conflict than the ownership of province-level territories. CharlieFoxtrot fucked around with this message at 06:26 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:23
|
|
|
Pakled posted:It's an issue of personal taste, but I'd prefer a game more focused on politics and diplomacy to model the Cold War. The map isn't really big enough to satisfactorily model most conflicts during that era down to the level that I think they'd demand in a war sim, so I'd prefer it if they abstracted military matters a bit more, like in Vicky, and focused more on soft power, because right now the game's looking like AoD with a lot of downtime between conflicts. If it can model 'Nixon goes to China' where you can open back door channels and have choices to do things like 'drawdown troops from Taiwan' for example to boost a target nation's favourability, and then as a result of that the target country will distance itself from an old alliance to be more favourable to you, then the game will be an unqualified success.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:25
|
|
|
Pakled posted:It's an issue of personal taste, but I'd prefer a game more focused on politics and diplomacy to model the Cold War. The map isn't really big enough to satisfactorily model most conflicts during that era down to the scale that I think they'd demand in a war sim, so I'd prefer it if they abstracted military matters a bit more, like in Vicky, and focused more on soft power, because right now the game's looking like AoD with a lot of downtime between conflicts. Huh I hadn't seen that screenshot before. I thought the reason they were keeping/upping the province count relative to Hoi3 was so that regional/small wars could be properly modeled. If the provinces aren't in southeast Asia where are they? I really hope they're not all still in Europe and the USA, a cold war game really shouldn't have much/any fighting there. Raenir Salazar posted:And Germany lost WWII but that possibility of them winning is like there. I've done it once allied to Poland. http://www.johntillersoftware.com/ModernCampaigns/FuldaGap85.html Enjoy. e: Now that I'm thinking about it I remember HOI3 broke down provinces into ~4 pieces when you zoomed in so that's a little better. It's still nowhere near enough to make war the focus of the game unless you're making a cold war gone hot simulator. uPen fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:26
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:And Germany lost WWII but that possibility of them winning is like there. I've done it once allied to Poland.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:29
|
|
|
EvW's real crime is that they changed the Diplomacy icon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:32
|
|
|
Raenir Salazar posted:And Germany lost WWII but that possibility of them winning is like there. I've done it once allied to Poland. Personally I think taking a game about a period where World War III was avoided, and making it yet another war game, is a really unimaginative way to squander a cool setting filled with non-warfare opportunities. I mean, there's tons of ways the Cold War could have played out without ending up in another World War. A game that revolves around avoiding war, and carefully keeping ones that do break out from escalating, would be really original. Hearts of Iron: Cold War Edition just makes me wonder why I'd want to pay for a mod of a game that doesn't really have my interest in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:40
|
|
|
Pornographic Memory posted:Personally I think taking a game about a period where World War III was avoided, and making it yet another war game, is a really unimaginative way to squander a cool setting filled with non-warfare opportunities. I mean, there's tons of ways the Cold War could have played out without ending up in another World War. A game that revolves around avoiding war, and carefully keeping ones that do break out from escalating, would be really original. Hearts of Iron: Cold War Edition just makes me wonder why I'd want to pay for a mod of a game that doesn't really have my interest in the first place. It's possible that you, a person who does not like Hearts of Iron 3, are not the target audience for "Hearts of Iron 3: East vs. West". (I'm not either)
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 06:51
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:It's possible that you, a person who does not like Hearts of Iron 3, are not the target audience for "Hearts of Iron 3: East vs. West". True but we can bitch and moan about the Cold War game we DO want..... we're goons it happens. I'd love if Paradox later go in and make their own or get another team to do a more political Cold War. Like if I want to, I should be able to bring the USSR/USA to its knees without firing a bullet and I just don't see that coming from the EvW game. The wars aspect of the game should almost be a continuation of the political side; sure you get stack v stack combat, but most of the focus is around insurgencies and guerrilla wars which are more about balancing doing damage to the guerrillas without providing them free PR plus driving up your own war exhaustion. burnishedfume fucked around with this message at 07:08 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 07:04
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:It's possible that you, a person who does not like Hearts of Iron 3, are not the target audience for "Hearts of Iron 3: East vs. West". I guess we'll just have to wait for their next grand strategy title for our 1945-Present Day geopolitical simulation game.  Give me the Cultural Revolution, Arab Spring, the Fall of the Berlin Wall, the rise of the Internet! Let me be Mikhail Gorbachev and try to lead the USSR through perestroika and glastnost. Let me fiddle with interest rates, or land a Mars rover, navigate a global financial crisis, develop into a first-world country, get my nation on the Security Council of the UN or form the European Union! Let me topple a government and install a friendly dictator, or sponsor a local insurgent group to fight for my cause! DrSunshine fucked around with this message at 07:12 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 07:07
|
|
|
You know, I would probably like HOI3 a lot more (than I already do) if the provinces were about that big (and if the research model was more like HOI2). In a recent Darkest Hour Lite play-through I managed to win the Sino-Japanese War in an in-game year / about half an afternoon, then expand from the Chinese borders to conquer Malaya, Indochina and British India in another afternoon. PleasingFungus posted:It's possible that you, a person who does not like Hearts of Iron 3, are not the target audience for "Hearts of Iron 3: East vs. West". I have to disagree with this. I like HOI series as a whole about as much as it can be liked, and playing around with all that 70s-90s military hardware is cool, but you have to zoom in close enough to actually see those tanks and planes and ships, and you have to make concessions to the reality that a large-scale shooting war was probably going to end in nukes most if not all of the time. When your scope is as large a globe-spanning grand strategy game, not only are you far enough from the battlefield that the T-72s are just numbers on a spreadsheet, you're also at a level where you have to deal with the possibility and consequences of escalation leading all the way up to a nuclear exchange, which will make the cool tanks phase fairly irrelevant once it gets there. As uPen suggests, there are games where the scope is defined tightly enough that a Cold-War-gone-Hot scenario is a given, you can play around with all that nice hardware, and all the higher-level strategic decisions are mostly handwaved away for the sake of playability. For EvW, I'd be pretty disappointed if it's usually going to degenerate into such a Cold-War-gone-Hot scenario, because a huge part of the Cold War's appeal are all the political machinations that went into it not happening in the first place: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_Power_(video_game) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight_Struggle That second game, Twilight Struggle, is really why I'm hoping for a similar crisis system in EvW: Twilight Struggle's "event cards" are basically a highlight reel of stuff that literally went down in history during the Cold War, and it would be a very cool game indeed if Paradox's sandbox-ish approach to games could produce such events depending on where the major powers are focusing their efforts on. Instead of locking the player into playing the Vietnam War card, the game might work from a Nationalist/Communist impulse in Malaysia, the American player might react to that, and then the EvW timeline of that particular game has a conflict breaking out in that archipelago instead of in Indochina, and it's the British that are humiliated instead of the French, and the progression is all the more different because of the terrain being spread out over dozens of islands, and so on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 07:14
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:I guess we'll just have to wait for their next grand strategy title for our 1945-Present Day geopolitical simulation game. I'm going to guess that if they spun it out to an outside studio as a subgame of HoI, they probably don't have any intention of ever doing a Cold War game with the internal studio. But, on second thought, Crusader Kings was originally outsourced to some Russian studio that botched it or failed to complete it, and that series has turned out well, so who the hell knows?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 07:26
|
|
|
DrSunshine posted:I guess we'll just have to wait for their next grand strategy title for our 1945-Present Day geopolitical simulation game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balance_of_Power_%28video_game%29 Not going to post a download link in case it qualifies as  , but the game's creator has released it online for free and it's very easy to find. Also, this game is really loving good and you should play it if you haven't.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 07:28
|
|
|
One thing I always thought would be amusing in a cold war game; play as a fascist nation like Spain or start as the USA and help fascists take power in Greece, and sort of exploit the West's uneasy alliance with right wing authoritarian regimes to help start up a third fascist faction. Start as Nationalist Spain, join NATO as an eager partner, start supporting pro-west fascists in nations that are currently neutral, support communists in Portugal to get them to abandon NATO and start getting close to the USSR, use it as justification to invade, continue slowly creating a network of fascists puppets that for now support the USA and NATO while undermining current democratic nations in order to justify invading them to "restore order", eventually amassing enough power to declare you and your fascist puppets as a new faction that opposes NATO and the Warsaw Pact, begin Maximum Hitler. Sure my scenario is ridiculous, but something along those lines of starting out as an authoritarian but loyal ally to NATO, use that position to prop up other authoritarian allies to NATO, and slowly exploit this uneasy alliance to form a new superpower and threat to world stability. Personally even if this didn't result in WWIII I'd find that kind of "what if" far cooler than "what if the USA and USSR nuked eachother".
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 07:35
|
|
|
Pakled posted:It's an issue of personal taste, but I'd prefer a game more focused on politics and diplomacy to model the Cold War. The map isn't really big enough to satisfactorily model most conflicts during that era down to the scale that I think they'd demand in a war sim, so I'd prefer it if they abstracted military matters a bit more, like in Vicky, and focused more on soft power, because right now the game's looking like AoD with a lot of downtime between conflicts. Those are the states/regions of each nation in the game, which are composed of provinces much like in Victoria II. Compared to other pictures, Indochina is going to have a hell of a lot of regions, which means a hell of a lot of provinces. DrProsek posted:One thing I always thought would be amusing in a cold war game; play as a fascist nation like Spain or start as the USA and help fascists take power in Greece, and sort of exploit the West's uneasy alliance with right wing authoritarian regimes to help start up a third fascist faction. Start as Nationalist Spain, join NATO as an eager partner, start supporting pro-west fascists in nations that are currently neutral, support communists in Portugal to get them to abandon NATO and start getting close to the USSR, use it as justification to invade, continue slowly creating a network of fascists puppets that for now support the USA and NATO while undermining current democratic nations in order to justify invading them to "restore order", eventually amassing enough power to declare you and your fascist puppets as a new faction that opposes NATO and the Warsaw Pact, begin Maximum Hitler. Sure my scenario is ridiculous, but something along those lines of starting out as an authoritarian but loyal ally to NATO, use that position to prop up other authoritarian allies to NATO, and slowly exploit this uneasy alliance to form a new superpower and threat to world stability. Personally even if this didn't result in WWIII I'd find that kind of "what if" far cooler than "what if the USA and USSR nuked eachother". Hopefully the code will allow for more than just two "NATO/Godless Commies" factions, along with the UN mechanics. If the Non-Aligned Movement acts as a third spoiler faction, then that would be pretty cool. Ditto for China as a fourth faction after the Sino-Soviet split, since the majority of the second half of the Cold War involved the two posturing over Mongolia, as well as the Cambodia/Vietnam proxy war. I checked out the code of that Communist Germany mod that was mentioned a while back, and what it does to make the 4th International a faction is that it kicks out the Axis as a possible faction and replaces it if Germany decides to go Maximum Trotsky. Hopefully in EvW it won't have to be such a loopy juggling act to have multiple factions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 08:10
|
|
|
ThePutty posted:Please tell me you're also writing improvements to the war-goal system. I really don't wanna see Ottoman Brittany ever again. I'm writing improvements to the wargoal system.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 09:11
|
|
|
Wiz posted:I'm writing improvements to the wargoal system. Gonna have to start calling you the Mailman.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 09:20
|
|
|
The HOD DD mentioned that the National Stockpile slider will now be split into Army Maintenance, Navy Maintenance and Construction sliders. What would that last one imply? Aren't construction materials for state projects already bought and procured on demand?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 09:28
|
|
|
Fintilgin posted:I'm going to guess that if they spun it out to an outside studio as a subgame of HoI, they probably don't have any intention of ever doing a Cold War game with the internal studio. I think a game focusing on the ways the scenario could turn into a shooting war, instead of desperately trying to avoid it, doesn't have much right calling itself a Cold War game. But then again, this isn't really doing that. A Cold War-era Paradox game would be fantastic and it's something pretty much everyone who posts to this thread has been wanting for years, but this isn't it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 09:28
|
|
|
What I want from Paradox is CK2 with more The Guild options. Create your character as a noble courtier and play Game of Thrones. Alliances inside the court, assassinations, plotting rebellions as the King, setting up your own puppet, things like that. Less country managing, more intrigues and political manoeuvering.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 10:01
|
|
|
Wiz posted:I'm writing improvements to the wargoal system. If someone were to lower the infamy penalties for conquests, would the AI understand that and go to war more often/try to conquer more territory?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 10:17
|
|
|
Spiderfist Island posted:Those are the states/regions of each nation in the game, which are composed of provinces much like in Victoria II. Meaning then that each state (such as East Cambodia) will consist of multiple provinces? I'm hoping so because Phnom Penh is borderline on the states and Cambodia itself seems to only have three, unless Kampot is hiding below that shot. And yeah, I would love to see a game that can model the era's complexity, from Cuban troops getting involved in Angola to Titoism, but the diaries are leaving me a bit nervous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 10:30
|
|
|
New EU4 dev diary on military matters. Basically armies and navies are identical to EU3, the military overview screen is a bit prettier and more legible and leaders cost monarch points (mil/dip depending on land/naval leaders) and have an upkeep cost. Mercenaries do count towards forcelimit but have equal morale to your regular troops and reinforce by themselves without using your manpower so they're probably worth using now at least from time to time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 10:39
|
|
|
Tahirovic posted:If someone were to lower the infamy penalties for conquests, would the AI understand that and go to war more often/try to conquer more territory? They would factor it in at least.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
Has anyone tried extending HoI2/3 tech into inventions for the final Vicky 2 techs? It'd be a neat way to extend the timeline and complicate poo poo while mitigating static-itis.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 11:38
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:New EU4 dev diary on military matters. Basically armies and navies are identical to EU3, the military overview screen is a bit prettier and more legible and leaders cost monarch points (mil/dip depending on land/naval leaders) and have an upkeep cost. Mercenaries do count towards forcelimit but have equal morale to your regular troops and reinforce by themselves without using your manpower so they're probably worth using now at least from time to time. Shame really, no word about leaders gaining traits/experience or anything that would improve them over time. Would have been nice if a general could gain experience from every siege or battle, then when he has enough experience his ability at shock/fire/maneuver/siege improves, depending on what he did to earn that experience.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 11:56
|
|
|
Well, assuming it's like EU3, they only live for five to ten years anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 11:57
|
|
|
Yeah I don't really know why they haven't added V2's leader traits to EU4, it seems like an obvious step and makes them more like individual characters and less like a brick of numbers you beat your enemy with.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 11:59
|
|
|
RabidWeasel posted:Yeah I don't really know why they haven't added V2's leader traits to EU4, it seems like an obvious step and makes them more like individual characters and less like a brick of numbers you beat your enemy with. I tried tallying battle casualties in my USCA-USA great war to see just how many people were dying because I got bored and was itching for a fight. The game should be keeping track of this stuff for me. What's the ledger for if I can't thumb through it and see something general like what wars I fought in, what the casualties were like, who won, etc? Even Rome Total War plopped an icon down whenever a Battle of Significance occurred. There's also a tinge of regret at the EU4 team not stealing the HoD naval battle code. Wolfgang Pauli fucked around with this message at 12:42 on Mar 1, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 12:39
|
|
|
gradenko_2000 posted:The HOD DD mentioned that the National Stockpile slider will now be split into Army Maintenance, Navy Maintenance and Construction sliders. What would that last one imply? Aren't construction materials for state projects already bought and procured on demand? Yes, but if you needed, say, 100 cement to build a fort, but you only had your buying stuff slider on 50% you'd only buy 50 cement the first day and 50 the next (assuming it was available etc.) I expect you'll normally keep the construction slider at 100% and only adjust the army/navy sliders much though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 12:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:20 |
|
|
Darkrenown posted:Yes, but if you needed, say, 100 cement to build a fort, but you only had your buying stuff slider on 50% you'd only buy 50 cement the first day and 50 the next (assuming it was available etc.) I expect you'll normally keep the construction slider at 100% and only adjust the army/navy sliders much though. So all the construction slider does is slow construction ever-so-slightly? What's the point of having it, then?
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 14:00
|
|